"bad-Life-Anyway" Irrelevant Nonsense Argument

[mymistake]

never mind

[Yrth]

Of course I know what this thread was about. You know a piece of information that I do not know. So you wanted to lord that over me. You acted like this piece of information makes you a better person than me and lacking it makes me worthless. And now every time I ask you just stab deeper, twist the knife more and add more salt.

 

I asked you to tell me why you have a problem with me and you wouldn't put it on the table. I can't fix it if I don't know.

I already apologized for any personal attacks in post 40. Just pointing it out in case you missed it. *and thats because I'm a nice person. Others would just tell you get get thicker skin.

[Ouroboros]

i.e. rich people don't have the right to abortion because the fetus might grow up to have a wonderful life.

 

Well at least that is a clear answer. For that I thank you.

Eh. You took that part of the quote out of context. Did you read the whole paragraph before? It's laying up a "if that's the case, then this would follow" scenario.

 

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.

Let me rewrite it so it becomes clearer. I can see that it might not be as obvious as I thought it was.

 

Or put it this way, if someone would argue 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, and the only probably mother who could potentially have a case for possibly suggest or suspect such a thing would be a poor woman or a person living in terrible living conditions to being with. In other words, if someone argues that the mother's right to abortion comes from the possibility of her to suspect a future misery on the fetus, then a rich mother would have that situation to assume a poor or miserable life for the fetus in the future. In essence, the argument leads ultimately to the condition that only poor or miserable people have the right to abortion, and also this argument would lead to that rich people do not have the right to abortion; therefore the whole argument that a mother's right to abortion is based on the potential future of the fetus is a bad argument.

 

Does it make it clearer? Let me explain further, I did not take a stance in the quote that poor people does not have a right to abortion, I only expanded on the poor argument of future-misery-support-abortion and a conclusion that would come out of it, just to show how bad the future-misery-support-abortion argument is. It was an "argument from absurdity" that I did, showing how absurd it would be if the argument was true.

 

Let me clarify even further. I have relatives and friends who had abortion. I have not one single qualm about that they did it. It's not that I dont' give a shit... no, I supported them in their decision. The decision is the mother's. But her right to decide comes from other aspects, not that she's poor or suspect misery in the future.

 

Secondly, to suspect misery in the future for a person means that it's a person that you would suspect misery for. If a fetus is not a person, then claiming the fetus to be a person is to contradict one's own argument. A fetus cant' be a non-person without a future and a person with a miserable future at the same time, because it's contradictory. That's the second reason why the misery argument is bad, bad, bad.

 

With that being said, one single unique and solo argument for pro-life that has to be chucked out the window is NOT the same as all other arguments gone as well.

 

 

 

Personally I find that rich people have miserable lives too because money is not happiness

Then we are all miserable. Then the premise of "abortion is justified because the fetus might have a miserable life" should be changed to "abortion is justified because the fetus will have a miserable life." Then the suggestion is that abortion should be mandatory. Abort all fetuses since everyone will be miserable anyway.

 

but I'm not going to add any more to the Let's-Hate-MM thread.

Low blow. Not nice. Nothing I said had anything to do with hating you. I was cordial and nice and put up with your antics, tried to explain things the best I could to make you see the logic, and you still come back with such crap shot. Thanks...

[mymistake]

Never mind

[Ouroboros]

I'm closing this thread unless you guys stop this crap-shoot competition.

[mymistake]

On second thought let me just say I apologize for any misunderstanding in that respect.

[mymistake]

Nothing I said had anything to do with hating you. I was cordial and nice . . .

 

Very true. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

 

You have never been unkind to me. You have never been disrespectful to me. Not ever.

 

It was not my intent to imply anything negative about you.

[Ouroboros]

MM. Thank you.

 

Btw, many famous persons were orphans and many grew up in foster homes. Steve Jobs was one of them. Either his parents could afford to keep him or didn't want him, yet he was born. He was the driving force behind Apple, like iPhone, iTouch, iPad... The first years of his life was miserable, but it got better, at least for a while, and we benefitted from it. I love my iPad. So I'm glad he was born.

[SilentLoner]

MM. Thank you.

 

Btw, many famous persons were orphans and many grew up in foster homes. Steve Jobs was one of them. Either his parents could afford to keep him or didn't want him, yet he was born. He was the driving force behind Apple, like iPhone, iTouch, iPad... The first years of his life was miserable, but it got better, at least for a while, and we benefitted from it. I love my iPad. So I'm glad he was born.

 

Actually Steve Jobs was put up for adoption at birth, not foster care. His parents had initially wanted to marry but Job's maternal grandfather opposed it. They did later marry and had a daughter (then divorced a few years later).

[Ouroboros]

MM. Thank you.

 

Btw, many famous persons were orphans and many grew up in foster homes. Steve Jobs was one of them. Either his parents could afford to keep him or didn't want him, yet he was born. He was the driving force behind Apple, like iPhone, iTouch, iPad... The first years of his life was miserable, but it got better, at least for a while, and we benefitted from it. I love my iPad. So I'm glad he was born.

 

Actually Steve Jobs was put up for adoption at birth, not foster care. His parents had initially wanted to marry but Job's maternal grandfather opposed it. They did later marry and had a daughter (then divorced a few years later).

Right. Sorry. Still, adoption sucks for many kids. Anyway, it shows that other people besides the mother influence the outcome of a birth and the first years, not just the mother. So if the "happy or crappy" prediction is to be made, it can't be only on the mother.

 

Here's a list of famous people who were orphans (adopted, foster care, or ...): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orphans_and_foundlings

 

We only need to find one of them who influence the world in a positive way and had a crappy first years.

[blackpudd1n]

I called my dad last night and asked him for his perspective on this particular argument. My parents fostered 25 children. Four of those children came from the same family; they got the youngest three first, then set about getting the second eldest, then helped the oldest escape an abusive relationship and had her stay with them while she sorted herself out. It was the first time the five siblings had lived under the same roof together.

 

My dad's general response when it comes to abortion is that as a male, he doesn't feel as though it is his place to have an opinion on the matter. But I asked him his thoughts on this argument, anyway, and he said that, having raised so many children, it's devastating to see how they suffer, and watch the cycle happen all over again. It's hard, too, for him, knowing how many children go from abusive homes to abusive foster homes. He talked about one local family, where the woman had had seven children for the welfare benefits, and of those seven children, six had severe physical and intellectual disabilities, and how disheartening it is for him to watch the one healthy child have to run around and care for the other six.

 

While this particular argument may mean little to those outside of the fostering system, for those of us who have been a part of it and have seen the suffering day in and day out, well, it's not such a bad argument. You try so hard to undo the damage, but some are just too damaged. My parents had one boy for two years, and it was the longest anyone had ever managed to have him before or after, and they got to the point where they acknowledged that if they could get him to go through life without killing anyone, then they would have succeeded, because that was the best that they could do with him. He is in his 20's now, and so far hasn't killed anyone. Has a permanent reservation up at the local jail, he's in and out that much.

 

I try hard with my younger siblings to be a good role model, to be someone that they can come to. I am honest with them about my own mistakes in life. But everyday I live with the pain of the one I failed, a beautiful young girl who no-one ever wanted. Not her mother, not her father, and not my former foster mother, who treated her like shit. I regret not taking her with me when I left. Her parents used to argue in front of her, saying, "I don't want her, you take her!" "No, I want want her, you take her!" Now she's on drugs and going from abusive relationship to abusive relationship, thinking that that is love.

 

Then another of my younger sisters started going the same way. Got into a relationship with a real piece of work. I wasn't going to lose her, too. I spent hours every night talking to her, showing her all the ways her boyfriend was mistreating her, telling her that she was worth more than to be treated like that. I was so scared. But she came through. She left him, and found her self-respect.

 

I have another two younger brothers. One, I'm not sure about- he may be okay. We just have to wait and see. The other I don't hold much hope for. My family has managed to keep him out of juvenile detention so far, but he'll be 18 soon, and everytime the cops come to the door, dad wonders if he's lying in the morgue because he pissed off the wrong person. He's already come close once, he got bashed so badly.

 

Then there are the babies, taken from their mothers at birth. A lot of people want to foster the babies, thinking they'll be all cute and they can raise them as part of their families. But the babies are born addicted to drugs, and you can't give them anything to help with their withdrawal. They scream morning, noon, and night. They suffer terribly, and it takes the patience of a saint to bring them through their withdrawal.

 

So yeah, for those of us tied into the system, it isn't such a bad argument. But then, people like myself have a different perspective, because we are the unwanted and damaged, and we live with the unwanted and damaged. And it often seems like abortion or sterilisation would just be too decent an act. Many of us don't choose to be different and come out the other side. I did. Some, if you fight hard enough for them, do. Others are just too damaged.

[Guest wester]

The particular argument listed in the thread title is irrelevant.

The point is who should have a say one way or another about what happens inside a woman's body.

 

Most people who want to say what a woman should or shouldn't do drop all responsibility once the primary goal of compromising that woman's agency is achieved - and the kid is born whether she wants it born or not. In other words - I have never seen an anti abortionist who will fight for higher wages, better jobs, social equality, more money for better schools, access to healthy and affordable food,a public wage for the unpaid job of child rearing, more public money for public parks, museums, sports fields and educational infrastructure. In short, anything that will make the mother's job even a little bit easier. You want to "save a kid's life" or do the morally right thing? Then try to advocate for even one of these social improvements instead of trying to lord it over others.

 

As soon as the kids is born the anti abortionist almost always has zero worry for whether the kid has access to a real life. They are happy to wipe their hands of responsibility and tut tut their moral superiority once the kid's life is turned into a predictable disaster because of the anti abortionist's status quo bias or thinking that the current economic and system of social relations is the ultimate be all and end all of human achievement. Can you spot the host of logical fallacies in this attitude?

 

And so many anti abortionists I know are control freaks who just can't come to grips that a woman automatically gets to control 50% of her children's genetic makeup by virtue of the fact she's a female and she's the mom. Nature bats last, my friend, and she has a strong bias towards a woman's choice about what happens to her own body. Tough noogies for us males and others who try to compensate for johnson issues by being sore losers on these questions.

 

And best of luck in figuring out how to get over these internally and externally destructive attitudes, because this kind of hyper-control obsession will eventually lead you straight to the psychiatrist's office begging for a lifetime prescription for anti-depressants.

 

Cheers and good day.

[Ouroboros]

Most people who want to say what a woman should or shouldn't do drop all responsibility once the primary goal of compromising that woman's agency is achieved - and the kid is born whether she wants it born or not. In other words - I have never seen an anti abortionist who will fight for higher wages, better jobs, social equality, more money for better schools, access to healthy and affordable food,a public wage for the unpaid job of child rearing, more public money for public parks, museums, sports fields and educational infrastructure. In short, anything that will make the mother's job even a little bit easier. You want to "save a kid's life" or do the morally right thing? Then try to advocate for even one of these social improvements instead of trying to lord it over others.

Agree. That's the irrationality of the pro-life side. The pro-life movement wants all children to be born, but won't push for a social safety-net to also ensure life, health, and shelter for the same children.

 

I believe that the mother has the right to choose. It's her decision. And the reason is that it's her body that is the incubator. As long as the fetus is inside her, she owns the "oven."

 

As soon as the kids is born the anti abortionist almost always has zero worry for whether the kid has access to a real life. They are happy to wipe their hands of responsibility and tut tut their moral superiority once the kid's life is turned into a predictable disaster because of the anti abortionist's status quo bias or thinking that the current economic and system of social relations is the ultimate be all and end all of human achievement. Can you spot the host of logical fallacies in this attitude?

The problem though is if we're start looking at it from social and economical status and decide if a fetus should be aborted. It suggests that we should push for mandatory abortions for all poor and unhealthy. If a person has a genetic disorder, force abortions on them. If the person can't afford a house, make them get rid of the fetus. So we have to be careful not to let future social status be the guide for who should and shouldn't be aborted.

 

And so many anti abortionists I know are control freaks who just can't come to grips that a woman automatically gets to control 50% of her children's genetic makeup by virtue of the fact she's a female and she's the mom. Nature bats last, my friend, and she has a strong bias towards a woman's choice about what happens to her own body. Tough noogies for us males and others who try to compensate for johnson issues by being sore losers on these questions.

But 50% of the genetic makeup is in the child too... but they're supposed to have no say at all. If a rich father has a child with a poor woman... can she argue she wants abortion because she's poor and the father has no say? (Let's say they're not married, but he wants to keep the baby.)

 

And best of luck in figuring out how to get over these internally and externally destructive attitudes, because this kind of hyper-control obsession will eventually lead you straight to the psychiatrist's office begging for a lifetime prescription for anti-depressants.

And that doesn't happen with the fathers? Probably not. Because all men are egotistical control-freaks who don't care for life.

 

The whole debate in the past used to be about the mother's right to her own body and that was the basis for her right to decide. The future happy-or-crappy life of the fetus was never a part of that equation. And I can see now why.

[Yrth]

While this particular argument may mean little to those outside of the fostering system, for those of us who have been a part of it and have seen the suffering day in and day out, well, it's not such a bad argument.

 

...

 

So yeah, for those of us tied into the system, it isn't such a bad argument. But then, people like myself have a different perspective, because we are the unwanted and damaged, and we live with the unwanted and damaged. And it often seems like abortion or sterilisation would just be too decent an act. Many of us don't choose to be different and come out the other side. I did. Some, if you fight hard enough for them, do. Others are just too damaged.

I see where you are coming from, it sounds like a rough existence. In fact,I'm often irrationally thankful that it wasn't the hand I was dealt at birth.

 

Before you said that the argument wouldn't apply after birth because "what's done is done." I took that to mean that we basically agree that the argument doesn't apply to persons, however rough their existence is or is likely to be. And that's all I'm really saying in this thread.

[Ouroboros]

One of my law professors (yes, I took a couple law classes... but you can see how much it was wasted on me ) said that abortion is the mother's right and most likely will stay so until such a time when there is a way to medically and safely for the mother to remove the fetus and gestate outside the body. Then any argument that gives the mother the right to terminate is taken away. I thought it was an interesting claim. If it's ever doable or not, I can't say, or if it will have other side effect, don't know that either.

[Yrth]

The particular argument listed in the thread title is irrelevant.

The point is who should have a say one way or another about what happens inside a woman's body.

I like where your going here, but I think it needs to be parsed just a little bit more. You said that the point is who should have a say over what happens inside a woman's body - is that irrespective of whether the fetus is a person? I think you need to say as much to properly characterize what people are generally arguing about when it comes to abortion.

[blackpudd1n]

While this particular argument may mean little to those outside of the fostering system, for those of us who have been a part of it and have seen the suffering day in and day out, well, it's not such a bad argument.

 

...

 

So yeah, for those of us tied into the system, it isn't such a bad argument. But then, people like myself have a different perspective, because we are the unwanted and damaged, and we live with the unwanted and damaged. And it often seems like abortion or sterilisation would just be too decent an act. Many of us don't choose to be different and come out the other side. I did. Some, if you fight hard enough for them, do. Others are just too damaged.

I see where you are coming from, it sounds like a rough existence. In fact,I'm often irrationally thankful that it wasn't the hand I was dealt at birth.

 

Before you said that the argument wouldn't apply after birth because "what's done is done." I took that to mean that we basically agree that the argument doesn't apply to persons, however rough their existence is or is likely to be. And that's all I'm really saying in this thread.

 

It is a rough life. A lot of the kids spend so much time surviving that they don't know how to live. I was 25 before I realised that I didn't have to survive anymore. But I still hoard food and blankets. I expect shit to happen and I prepare for it as much as possible. I don't depend on anyone- I always have a back-up plan. I can kick into survival mode at a moment's notice. It's not a good way to live, but that's life.

 

I don't think anyone who is pro-abortion would advocate killing someone once born because their life sucks. Just have to do the best we can once they are born to help them get through life. I just wish more bad mothers would have abortions. Because they clearly don't value the child's life, either, if they have no intention of raising that child in a loving home. Poverty doesn't mean a bad home or life for a child, if there is love, warmth, and kindness. Drugs, violence, alcoholism, abuse, and neglect mean a bad life, and a child growing up believing that they have no worth and are unwanted. Trying to get a child to see that they are wanted is so hard to do, when they have been mistreated.

 

I never wanted children of my own. Not because I have no maternal instinct; I do, I remember when it kicked in when I was 19. It's because I knew that at some stage, a child would need and want me in their life, and I wanted my heart, life, and home to be ready for them when it happened. I know how hard it is to come into a family with biological children. The incoming child never feels quite secure, always feels like second-best. The biological children often feel threatened by the presence of the newcomer. I probably won't foster; children who are looking for a family have a radar for people who are open to giving them that. Sometimes they stay a while, other times they stay forever. And that is okay. You just give them what they need.

 

Children naturally give you a role in their lives, so I let the children decide what they want to call me. I never force any of my nieces and nephews to call me "aunty"; I let them decide. Some call me aunty, others don't. That's fine by me. Blood means nothing to me anyway. If the children want to honour me with that role in their life, then I'll step up to it, regardless of whether they are related to me or not.