blackpudd1n Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 This is a rant about one argument that exists in the current abortion thread. I'd appreciate it if responders would limit the scope of their replies to comments about this specific argument. Here is what drives me crazy: arguments that abortion is partly justified by the fact that a kid "would have had a bad life anyway," the "bad-life-anyway" argument. It's just not relevant in abortion debates where the moral relevance of a fetus is being contested. This is an extremely simple point, but, apparently, people are capable of missing it entirely. People disagree about the moral relevance of the fetus. A basic point about abortion discussions is that, *generally, one side believes that a fetus = person like you and me. From this starting point, abortion debate can take only one of two paths: 1. Looking at how abortions may be justified when a fetus = a person like you and me, or 2. debating whether a fetus is a person like you and me. That's it. Stepping briefly onto path 1, it should be obvious why the bad-life-anyway argument fails instantly. Having a bad future never entitles other people to kill you. Under the right conditions, you might be entitled to kill yourself, but no one would ever make that decision for you. On this path, bombing a daycare center makes you a terrorist and a mass murderer. It should be clear by now that the bad-life-anyway argument is completely irrelevant to someone who thinks a fetus is a person like you and me. It has zero currency as a justification under this framework. In order to use it, you would first need to debate whether a fetus is a person like you and me. If you skip *debating the premise, you risk looking like someone who thinks its OK to slit a random pedestrian's throat if you think their life isn't worth living. If you can't understand this simple, basic point about abortion discussions, you shouldn't be having one. *edited for clarity Clearly you have never had the joy of being in foster care. I dare say you have not watched child after child being born into a family for the sake of welfare benefits, only to be neglescted, abused, and mistreated while mum and whichever dad piss and shoot up the grocery money and be taken one by one and put into the system. I take it that you have not seen with your own eyes the daily struggle and hardship that those children experience, wondering why mummy doesn't want them, why they can't go home. The hurt they feel when they realise that mum's too off the planet to give a fuck about them. For these children, their mother having an abortion would have been too decent a thing to do. I care little for your ideological arguments. I have lived with these children in the system, I have seen the reality, I continue to see it as I see these children in their adulthood, and watched as the cycle continues. Abortion would have been too decent an act. Better off dead then, are they? That's what your saying? So for you, the bad-life-anyway argument is more than just a counter to some potential life argument?fyi, I'm not making any ideological arguments. Actually, you are making ideological arguments. The whole thing is just one big mental excerise to you. Yet, no matter what you think of the argument, I live in the real world with these kids and, realistically, it would have been more decent to have aborted them. I'm not advocating to kill them now, what's done is done, but when you see this shit over and over you do end up with a different perspective. All I can say is that you are very fortunate to have not seen what I have and have not ended up with this perspective, that you can be removed from it all. You are very, very lucky in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 _ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 My point is, think about what your beliefs do to others. If I understand you correctly, you say the abortion debate is only on the question of, is the fetus just as human as anyone else. I am saying, think about the full consequences of your position on say, the mother. If your going to have a debate over ethics, you can't really leave out a key part of the equation. Am I making better sense? Thank you for being civil btw, its appreciated. Somewhat. I should say that it's not my position, its just what I see as the general pro-life position: fetus = person. The consequences for mothers is central to the whole debate, isn't it? The consequences = the existence or scope of abortion rights. : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 My point is, think about what your beliefs do to others. If I understand you correctly, you say the abortion debate is only on the question of, is the fetus just as human as anyone else. I am saying, think about the full consequences of your position on say, the mother. If your going to have a debate over ethics, you can't really leave out a key part of the equation. Am I making better sense? Thank you for being civil btw, its appreciated. Somewhat. I should say that it's not my position, its just what I see as the general pro-life position: fetus = person. The consequences for mothers is central to the whole debate, isn't it? The consequences = the existence or scope of abortion rights. : ) I am not sure there is much I disagree with you on that point specifically. I think the role and the rights of the mother are really a key issue, its something the pro life crowd can't really answer to my satisfaction. Again, I am utilitarian in my ethical thinking most of the time, I think the goal is to reduce suffering as much as possible. And that goes for the fetus and the mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 Actually, you are making ideological arguments. The whole thing is just one big mental excerise to you. Yet, no matter what you think of the argument, I live in the real world with these kids and, realistically, it would have been more decent to have aborted them. I'm not advocating to kill them now, what's done is done, but when you see this shit over and over you do end up with a different perspective. All I can say is that you are very fortunate to have not seen what I have and have not ended up with this perspective, that you can be removed from it all. You are very, very lucky in that way. Well, you know my views because you read them sometime earlier this month in the other thread. But just because I have ideas and think about this stuff doesn't make me an ideologue. An ideologue is someone who is uncompromising and dogmatic. My beliefs about abortion have changed since I've been in Ex-C in response to what I've understood to be compelling arguments. So, no, I'm not an ideologue. And fyi, I have an close-up perspective of society's worst, literally worst offenders and their environments, so I'm not totally removed, or even as removed as I would prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 The point to this is, if properly anesthetized, an abortion isn't any worse to the victim than not being conceived. It's a lot better than the horrible lives that many people have to deal with. Well, that's the problem with that argument. If death is better for people because they might have horrible lives, then we all should kill ourselves because tomorrow might be a bad day. What about if the fetus becomes a person with a good life? Or put it this way, arguing that "the mother has the right to decide abortion because the fetus might have a terrible life" only works if the mother can assume a potential horrible life for the fetus in the future. In other words, only poor and people in terrible living conditions have the right to make this choice for abortion, not wealthy people, i.e. rich people don't have the right to abortion because the fetus might grow up to have a wonderful life. That's why that argument is not a good argument to support abortion. There are other arguments, but this unique and specific argument is not a good one. The woman's right to choose can be based on other arguments than the fetus "might have a bad life." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 Uh, why would I care if the fetus has value one way or the other? The argument has conditions. It's the mother. The fetus is inside her and made from her. 1 A fetus is an unborn child. 2 if the mother, in her unique perspective, judges that the child's life is a fate worse than death then she has the right to show mercy. The point to this is, if properly anesthetized, an abortion isn't any worse to the victim than not being conceived. It's a lot better than the horrible lives that many people have to deal with. I'm sure there is going to be a tsunami of insults and emotes. I don't care. Uncivilized rants are a poor substitute for an argument. Idk quite what to say. You call me out for 'wrath,' and now this. I guess all I want to know now is whether you still don't understand what this whole thread has been about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 The point to this is, if properly anesthetized, an abortion isn't any worse to the victim than not being conceived. It's a lot better than the horrible lives that many people have to deal with. Well, that's the problem with that argument. If death is better for people because they might have horrible lives, then we all should kill ourselves because tomorrow might be a bad day. What about if the fetus becomes a person with a good life? Or put it this way, arguing that "the mother has the right to decide abortion because the fetus might have a terrible life" only works if the mother can assume a potential horrible life for the fetus in the future. In other words, only poor and people in terrible living conditions have the right to make this choice for abortion, not wealthy people, i.e. rich people don't have the right to abortion because the fetus might grow up to have a wonderful life. That's why that argument is not a good argument to support abortion. There are other arguments, but this unique and specific argument is not a good one. The woman's right to choose can be based on other arguments than the fetus "might have a bad life." As I said the considerations in that regard very by circumstance. You will only here me argue that abortion should be legal only in extreme circumstances (like say being the product of a rape, or a starving family from africa). If you can't give what the child needs to have a healthy decent life due to poverty that is the types of considerations one should make. But not, ohh they may have a bad period in there life 50 years from now. But if you can't take care of the kid for the next four years(or any more immediate number) in a proper way. Shouldn't that be considered? I think so. How I go about that, I am not sure, but I think that is a good direction. I am speaking for myself only here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 As I said the considerations in that regard very by circumstance. You will only here me argue that abortion should be legal only in extreme circumstances (like say being the product of a rape, or a starving family from africa). If you can't give what the child needs to have a healthy decent life due to poverty that is the types of considerations one should make. But not, ohh they may have a bad period in there life 50 years from now. But if you can't take care of the kid for the next four years(or any more immediate number) in a proper way. Shouldn't that be considered? I think so. How I go about that, I am not sure, but I think that is a good direction. I am speaking for myself only here. Perhaps. But maybe the system is wrong that can't help? Consider that US (as an example) is working towards a universal healthcare. Shouldn't protection of life then also be important? Shouldn't this poor woman (in US at least) be given support for those four years instead of terminating a life? If it's an economical question, then it can be solved. But is an economical situation the same as a right to terminate life? What about later in life? The kid grows up to being 10 years old and the father dies, the mother can't afford to support her child... bring out the shotgun, it's her right? No. Don't think so. So in essence, poverty is not automatically a right to end life (whatever kind it might be). Is poverty a right to terminate the life of a person's pets? Relatives? Old parents? But even so, the argument in the this thread wasn't about that "most definitely will the mother not afford to pay for..." but rather potential, maybe, perhaps, might be, let's see... if the fetus might grow up to a child that has a terrible life. Terrible life is defined as many things besides poverty, and "might be" is not the same as "absolutely will be." Put it yet another way, do we have the right to kill the gorillas in Kongo because we think that perhaps they might have a terrible life four years from now? What about killing them now because some hunter might kill them next year? Basically, I just think Pockets is right that it's a bad argument to support abortion. I support pro-choice, but we don't have to use bad argument to support it. I think it's an honest position to be in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Basically, I just think Pockets is right that it's a bad argument to support abortion. I support pro-choice, but we don't have to use bad argument to support it. I think it's an honest position to be in. You might as well be pro life hans, if the main arguements of the pro choice movement suck you might as well not be pro choice. Though I don't think the bad life anyway argument sucks. Its just a perspective that is hard to understand. I don't expect poverty to go away, or the system to ever be fixed. So that you won't have people suffering needlessly. That is the question for me mostly. Do I want people to know suffering and be birthed into hell. Or would I rather take a pass on it. I think its key to being pro choice(at least how it make sense to me), to recognise that. Are you going to stop something, when its a bunch of cells and understands nothing, or are you going to let it experience suffering that it shouldn't have to, nor deserves. I am glad I have experienced what I have in my life, but I wouldn't wish some of it on another soul. I have heard of experiences WAY WAY WAY worse then mine. I can't force that on someone. That is why I think the bad life arguement is valid and pro choice is a valid position. You can't really even recommend adoption, a lot of people adopt just for the tax check. Why not just cut that off at the knees and prevent that kind of neglect. I am pro choice, because I don't believe society has a right to force that kind of misery (neglect, abuse, whatever the case may be) on that potential child. Even if it was a life since conception(I am not convinced it is), what moral imperative is there that says. Wait, lets force people who can't afford even enough to eat, or something like, to add another starving mouth. I am not convinced society could ever stop hunger, or stop neglect or child abuse. I am simply not, its why I am pro choice. Like I have said already, there are some things better not lived thru. I just think, abortion should always a option for people, who can't take care of a kid. I am not convinced we could ever find a system perfect enough for those unwanted potential people. That is why I think the arguement is valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 You might as well be pro life hans, if the main arguements of the pro choice movement suck you might as well not be pro choice. No, it's not the main argument for pro-choice. If you think that's the main argument, no wonder there's a confusion here. I studied the pro-choice arguments in philosophy, and this one was not one of them. And one bad pro-choice argument doesn't make all pro-choice arguments bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 You might as well be pro life hans, if the main arguements of the pro choice movement suck you might as well not be pro choice. No, it's not the main argument for pro-choice. If you think that's the main argument, no wonder there's a confusion here. I studied the pro-choice arguments in philosophy, and this one was not one of them. And one bad pro-choice argument doesn't make all pro-choice arguments bad. Name the three best. I am not saying that to be snarky. I just am curious about what you find convincing. I am not sure totally what I was thinking when I said that, I would issue a a retraction if possible. Was trying to make a point about the quality of the position if its best arguments are invalid. I made it poorly and wrongly. Made a leap in logic there I didn't notice till you pointed in out to me, thanks. Sorry long day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 You might as well be pro life hans, if the main arguements of the pro choice movement suck you might as well not be pro choice. No, it's not the main argument for pro-choice. If you think that's the main argument, no wonder there's a confusion here. I studied the pro-choice arguments in philosophy, and this one was not one of them. And one bad pro-choice argument doesn't make all pro-choice arguments bad. Name the three best. I am not saying that to be snarky. I just am curious about what you find convincing. I am not sure totally what I was thinking when I said that, I would issue a a retraction if possible. Was trying to make a point about the quality of the position if its best arguments are invalid. I made it poorly and wrongly. Made a leap in logic there I didn't notice till you pointed in out to me, thanks. Sorry long day. I think that's been discussed in other threads, and there's one right now discussing it. I haven't made any objections to many of the other arguments there. Is it necessary to bring them up in this thread too? Let me ask you, if the future of the fetus is the main argument for or against the life of the fetus, then why aren't we including economists, tax experts, lawyers, and the father in the decission for an abortion? Why is the mother the only "prophet" who can properly know the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 You might as well be pro life hans, if the main arguements of the pro choice movement suck you might as well not be pro choice. No, it's not the main argument for pro-choice. If you think that's the main argument, no wonder there's a confusion here. I studied the pro-choice arguments in philosophy, and this one was not one of them. And one bad pro-choice argument doesn't make all pro-choice arguments bad. Name the three best. I am not saying that to be snarky. I just am curious about what you find convincing. I am not sure totally what I was thinking when I said that, I would issue a a retraction if possible. Was trying to make a point about the quality of the position if its best arguments are invalid. I made it poorly and wrongly. Made a leap in logic there I didn't notice till you pointed in out to me, thanks. Sorry long day. I think that's been discussed in other threads, and there's one right now discussing it. I haven't made any objections to many of the other arguments there. Is it necessary to bring them up in this thread too? Yeah point, taken, I EVEN, have other thoughts that support my position, that i have stated in said other threads. So no worries. I should probably put my foot in my mouth as tired as I have been today. Let me ask you, if the future of the fetus is the main argument for or against the life of the fetus, then why aren't we including economists, tax experts, lawyers, and the father in the decission for an abortion? Why is the mother the only "prophet" who can properly know the future? As I said earlier, I think I might have to eat my words. Well your right on that point. If your looking for apology hans, you got it, sorry man, didn't mean to mischaracterize what you were saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 No worries Valk. I know it's an emotional issue, so it's a very difficult to discuss different shades of it. We're totally okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 No worries Valk. I know it's an emotional issue, so it's a very difficult to discuss different shades of it. We're totally okay. With that, I am going to bow out of the abortion topic. I am no where near as informed on this issue as I thought I was. Glad to know were cool, thought I hurt your feelings for second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeCoastie Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Some studies show that legalizing abortion in the U.S. has led to lower crime rates. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=1843646&page=1#.T5UC7qu0wQo It seems that abortion does benefit society as well as women in general. That's why I'm pro-choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 This is a rant about one argument that exists in the current abortion thread. I'd appreciate it if responders would limit the scope of their replies to comments about this specific argument. Here is what drives me crazy: arguments that abortion is partly justified by the fact that a kid "would have had a bad life anyway," the "bad-life-anyway" argument. It's just not relevant in abortion debates where the moral relevance of a fetus is being contested. This is an extremely simple point, but, apparently, people are capable of missing it entirely. People disagree about the moral relevance of the fetus. A basic point about abortion discussions is that, *generally, one side believes that a fetus = person like you and me. From this starting point, abortion debate can take only one of two paths: 1. Looking at how abortions may be justified when a fetus = a person like you and me, or 2. debating whether a fetus is a person like you and me. That's it. Stepping briefly onto path 1, it should be obvious why the bad-life-anyway argument fails instantly. Having a bad future never entitles other people to kill you. Under the right conditions, you might be entitled to kill yourself, but no one would ever make that decision for you. On this path, bombing a daycare center *in Camden, NJ could not be justified by saying they would have had bad lives, it would makes you a terrorist and a mass murderer. It should be clear by now that the bad-life-anyway argument is completely irrelevant to someone who thinks a fetus is a person like you and me. It has zero currency as a justification under this framework. In order to use it, you would first need to debate whether a fetus is a person like you and me. If you skip *debating the premise, you risk looking like someone who thinks its OK to slit a random pedestrian's throat if you think their life isn't worth living. If you can't understand this simple, basic point about abortion discussions, you shouldn't be having one. *edited for clarity I dont like your debate rules...debates can take many paths. So there. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Actually, you are making ideological arguments. The whole thing is just one big mental excerise to you. Yet, no matter what you think of the argument, I live in the real world with these kids and, realistically, it would have been more decent to have aborted them. I'm not advocating to kill them now, what's done is done, but when you see this shit over and over you do end up with a different perspective. All I can say is that you are very fortunate to have not seen what I have and have not ended up with this perspective, that you can be removed from it all. You are very, very lucky in that way. Well, you know my views because you read them sometime earlier this month in the other thread. But just because I have ideas and think about this stuff doesn't make me an ideologue. An ideologue is someone who is uncompromising and dogmatic. My beliefs about abortion have changed since I've been in Ex-C in response to what I've understood to be compelling arguments. So, no, I'm not an ideologue. And fyi, I have an close-up perspective of society's worst, literally worst offenders and their environments, so I'm not totally removed, or even as removed as I would prefer. Do you live with these people in your own home? Have you ever lived with them for an extended period? Shared your every day life with them? See them as your brothers and sisters? Or do you just work with them? I hate to say it, but while you may not consider yourself a dogmatic, uncompromising idealogue, you certainly come across that way in your posts. You have a very arrogant way of writing your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 Do you live with these people in your own home? Have you ever lived with them for an extended period? Shared your every day life with them? See them as your brothers and sisters? Or do you just work with them? I hate to say it, but while you may not consider yourself a dogmatic, uncompromising idealogue, you certainly come across that way in your posts. You have a very arrogant way of writing your thoughts. I help represent them atm. I will try to work on my tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 Some studies show that legalizing abortion in the U.S. has led to lower crime rates. http://abcnews.go.co...=1#.T5UC7qu0wQo It seems that abortion does benefit society as well as women in general. That's why I'm pro-choice. This really deserves its own thread. But a few things: - the news article you liked is equivocal about whether abortion actually lowered crime, they were just reporting on the fact that some people were saying it did. It's a shaky foundation, I think you would be better off relying on something else. - an abortion opponent's response was already in the article: "The response from the right was 'this is crazy because abortion is murder[.]'" That, in a nutshell, is why arguments that ignore the premise that fetus = person will not be persuasive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Abortion cannot be murder when personhood is defined internationally at the time of birth. There are no requirements to register a miscarriage or even a pregnancy. Killing an infant just out of the womb in normal or caesarian birth would constitute Murder in most countries. The prolifers expect the pro choice folk to accept their redefinition of terms when the pro choice use terms internationally accepted and used in the medical community. Even a natural premature birth at 7 months, the "child" would die w/o modern incubators and the like. It is only after 8 months gestation that a foetus becomes viable. Show us any country that has a requirement to register a pregnancy or a miscarriage. Even stillbirths are not required to be registered as a birth as the infant did not breathe. Stillbirths are merely reported for statistical purposes and even clergy refuse to bury miscarried and stillborns. These are merely seen as failed pregnancies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts